TY - JOUR
T1 - Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system
AU - Hanmer, Janel
AU - Cella, David
AU - Feeny, David
AU - Fischhoff, Baruch
AU - Hays, Ron D.
AU - Hess, Rachel
AU - Pilkonis, Paul A.
AU - Revicki, Dennis
AU - Roberts, Mark
AU - Tsevat, Joel
AU - Yu, Lan
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgements Janel Hanmer was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number KL2TR001856. Participant recruitment was completed by the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the University of Pittsburgh, which is supported by the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program, Grants UL1RR024153 and UL1TR000005. The funding agreements ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Springer International Publishing AG.
PY - 2017/12/1
Y1 - 2017/12/1
N2 - Purpose: We sought to select a parsimonious subset of domains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) that could be used for preference-based valuation. Domain selection criteria included face validity, comprehensiveness, and structural independence. Methods: First, 9 health outcomes measurement experts selected domains appropriate for a general health measure using a modified Delphi procedure. Second, 50 adult community members assessed structural independence of domain pairs. For each pair, the participant was asked if it were possible to have simultaneously good functioning in domain 1 but poor functioning in domain 2, and vice versa. The community members also rated the relative importance of the domains. Finally, the experts selected domains, guided by community members’ judgments of structural independence and importance. Results: After 3 rounds of surveys, the experts agreed on 10 potential domains. The percent of pairs deemed structurally independent by community members ranged from 50 to 95 (mean = 78). Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression were retained because of their inclusion in existing preference-based measures and their importance to community members. Four other domains were added because they were important to community members and judged to be independent by at least 67% of respondents: Cognitive Function—Abilities; Fatigue; Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities; and Sleep Disturbance. Conclusion: With input from measurement experts and community members, we selected 7 PROMIS domains that can be used to create a preference-based score.
AB - Purpose: We sought to select a parsimonious subset of domains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) that could be used for preference-based valuation. Domain selection criteria included face validity, comprehensiveness, and structural independence. Methods: First, 9 health outcomes measurement experts selected domains appropriate for a general health measure using a modified Delphi procedure. Second, 50 adult community members assessed structural independence of domain pairs. For each pair, the participant was asked if it were possible to have simultaneously good functioning in domain 1 but poor functioning in domain 2, and vice versa. The community members also rated the relative importance of the domains. Finally, the experts selected domains, guided by community members’ judgments of structural independence and importance. Results: After 3 rounds of surveys, the experts agreed on 10 potential domains. The percent of pairs deemed structurally independent by community members ranged from 50 to 95 (mean = 78). Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression were retained because of their inclusion in existing preference-based measures and their importance to community members. Four other domains were added because they were important to community members and judged to be independent by at least 67% of respondents: Cognitive Function—Abilities; Fatigue; Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities; and Sleep Disturbance. Conclusion: With input from measurement experts and community members, we selected 7 PROMIS domains that can be used to create a preference-based score.
KW - Health domains
KW - Health status
KW - Health-related quality of life
KW - Multi-attribute utility instrument
KW - PROMIS
KW - Utility
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027727345&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027727345&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-017-1686-2
DO - 10.1007/s11136-017-1686-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 28825177
AN - SCOPUS:85027727345
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 26
SP - 3377
EP - 3385
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 12
ER -